This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.

So, a significant amount of evidence, from an unrelated field that supports evolution and you still can't be bothered to actually TALK ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

According to JoeG, ID is not anti-evolution. Is that true? If so, then why do you spend so much time attacking evolution instead of looking for support for ID?

If it's not true, then you should go explain that to JoeG and a few other of the ID supports, because they are saying a lot of wrong things.

BTW: My most often used statement applies here. Even if you totally disprove evolutionary theory in all it's particulars and all it's supporting evidence, that doesn't automatically make ID (or creationism or anything else) right. Only positive supporting evidence can do that... and you still aren't looking for it.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.

So, a significant amount of evidence, from an unrelated field that supports evolution and you still can't be bothered to actually TALK ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

According to JoeG, ID is not anti-evolution. †Is that true? †If so, then why do you spend so much time attacking evolution instead of looking for support for ID?

If it's not true, then you should go explain that to JoeG and a few other of the ID supports, because they are saying a lot of wrong things.

BTW: My most often used statement applies here. Even if you totally disprove evolutionary theory in all it's particulars and all it's supporting evidence, that doesn't automatically make ID (or creationism or anything else) right. †Only positive supporting evidence can do that... and you still aren't looking for it.

Ogre, to be charitable, he _is_ looking for it, in the same way as a drunk looks for his car keys under the street lamp. In this case, a Bible shaped street lamp.

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.

So, a significant amount of evidence, from an unrelated field that supports evolution and you still can't be bothered to actually TALK ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

According to JoeG, ID is not anti-evolution. †Is that true? †If so, then why do you spend so much time attacking evolution instead of looking for support for ID?

If it's not true, then you should go explain that to JoeG and a few other of the ID supports, because they are saying a lot of wrong things.

BTW: My most often used statement applies here. Even if you totally disprove evolutionary theory in all it's particulars and all it's supporting evidence, that doesn't automatically make ID (or creationism or anything else) right. †Only positive supporting evidence can do that... and you still aren't looking for it.

Ogre, to be charitable, he _is_ looking for it, in the same way as a drunk looks for his car keys under the street lamp. In this case, a Bible shaped street lamp.

Is that the same joke as the officer asking why he's looking for his keys under the street lamp and the guys says, "Well, I dropped my keys in the street way over there, but the light is over here."

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.

Yes, brilliant, just like the Galileo gambit that they and every other pseudoscientist has brought up.

What have they ever done but produce very inexact analogies that fail at the facts every time?

Let's see, Wegener's idea explained the fit of continents and fossil distributions (related to the fact that evolutionary theory tells us that exact duplicates can't be replicated after extinction, not the case for design--gee, how does that turn out, in fact?), while IDiocy explains, uh, what the IDiots want it to explain--while every inconvenient fact that evolution predicts and is found is ignored by these dishonest cretins.

Did plate tectonics win by whining that it doesn't stoop to geologists' pathetic level of detail?

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.

Yes, brilliant, just like the Galileo gambit that they and every other pseudoscientist has brought up.

What have they ever done but produce very inexact analogies that fail at the facts every time?

Let's see, Wegener's idea explained the fit of continents and fossil distributions (related to the fact that evolutionary theory tells us that exact duplicates can't be replicated after extinction, not the case for design--gee, how does that turn out, in fact?), while IDiocy explains, uh, what the IDiots want it to explain--while every inconvenient fact that evolution predicts and is found is ignored by these dishonest cretins.

Did plate tectonics win by whining that it doesn't stoop to geologists' pathetic level of detail?

Glen Davidson

I think it was ultimately a farting flash animation that put tectonics over the top, wasn't it?

--------------"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers------"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

She and co-author Doug Axe tested in the lab an easier case of evolutionary transition, from one similar but functionally distinct bacterial protein to another -- "evolutionary cousins" of a humbler type. This very minor revolution would require seven coordinated mutations if not more, which in a population of bacteria would need something like 10^27 years.

Quote

To put that in some perspective, remember that the universe is only about 10^10 years old. It can't have happened.

The problem of accomplishing the revolution that transforms a chimp-like ancestor into a member of the genus Homo is, of course, worlds and worlds and worlds more difficult. Dr. Gauger cites Dennis Bramble and Daniel Lieberman, writing in Nature and describing the immensity of difference in anatomical features -- the unique gifts that make their first appearance in Homo erectus and Homo sapiens.

Remember we're not talking about what are arguably called spiritual endowments -- the ability to speak, write, do math, do art, appreciate lofty moral and aesthetic ideals, and the rest that science can't even describe much less account for in evolutionary terms. We're just talking about the anatomy.

Bramble and Lieberman count 16 such revolutionary changes and Gauger points out that the transition from our last presumed common ancestor with chimps is allotted only six million years by the standard timetable. This itself produces a defeater for any Darwinian narrative of human evolution:

Quote

Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and long generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population.

Gauger concludes:

Quote

Our uniquely human attributes constitute a quantum leap, not just an innovation, a leap that cannot have arisen without guidance. We are not souped-up apes.

Bramble and Lieberman count 16 such revolutionary changes and Gauger points out that the transition from our last presumed common ancestor with chimps is allotted only six million years by the standard timetable.

Whales evolved from something like this:to something like this in approximately the same timeframe:

I find the change from a terrestial to an aquatic lifestyle somewhat more impressive.

--------------"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

She and co-author Doug Axe tested in the lab an easier case of evolutionary transition, from one similar but functionally distinct bacterial protein to another -- "evolutionary cousins" of a humbler type. This very minor revolution would require seven coordinated mutations if not more, which in a population of bacteria would need something like 10^27 years.

Quote

To put that in some perspective, remember that the universe is only about 10^10 years old. It can't have happened.

The problem of accomplishing the revolution that transforms a chimp-like ancestor into a member of the genus Homo is, of course, worlds and worlds and worlds more difficult. Dr. Gauger cites Dennis Bramble and Daniel Lieberman, writing in Nature and describing the immensity of difference in anatomical features -- the unique gifts that make their first appearance in Homo erectus and Homo sapiens.

Remember we're not talking about what are arguably called spiritual endowments -- the ability to speak, write, do math, do art, appreciate lofty moral and aesthetic ideals, and the rest that science can't even describe much less account for in evolutionary terms. We're just talking about the anatomy.

Bramble and Lieberman count 16 such revolutionary changes and Gauger points out that the transition from our last presumed common ancestor with chimps is allotted only six million years by the standard timetable. This itself produces a defeater for any Darwinian narrative of human evolution:

Quote

Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and long generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population.

Gauger concludes:

Quote

Our uniquely human attributes constitute a quantum leap, not just an innovation, a leap that cannot have arisen without guidance. We are not souped-up apes.

My, oh my, how fascinating.

Once again, I ask... why not quit trying to find problems with evolution and start talking about ID.

I've asked you a number of questions about ID and you have completely ignored them.

You're here. The rest of your ilk are to chicken to come here and I'm not about to go to a place with restricted access and a group that doesn't mind changing words written by someone else.

So, how about it? Are you actually interested in talking or are you just trolling?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Yes indeed. But you'll find that when the bucket is empty you won't be able to simply drop in your favoured replacement without any actual evidence to support it, regardless of how empty the bucket is.

So, how did humans arise? Did the designer tweak DNA directly or was it something else?

Does the fact that you don't know a single thing about how, when, where or why with regard to the designer or the design never worry you?

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Tell me, from the bottom of your heart, this is what ID boils down to: "we are not apes," isn't it? You, guys, don't give a shit about the tree of life. At the end of the day, it's about the special creation of humans. Did I get it right?

The DI's stated, written objective is nothing short of the "renewal" of American culture and science to incorporate a Biblical Christian worldview in everything that's done.

No, the DI does not care about science one whit which is why they employ the witless (Klinkleklopper, Luskin the Gerbil, Axe, Gauger, et al).

"My granddaddy ain't no monkey" is just their way of keeping the flaps of the big tent open wide enough to fleece the credulous and feeble minded. Alas, those people would be most of our elected representatives!

Having ape ancestors is way cooler than having been modelled out of a lump of dirt. And a clean and uninterrupted genetic lineage still beats some tinkering and tweaking along the way - it's just much more streamlined, just like a Lamborghini is cooler than a pimped ride.

Having ape ancestors is way cooler than having been modelled out of a lump of dirt. And a clean and uninterrupted genetic lineage still beats some tinkering and tweaking along the way - it's just much more streamlined, just like a Lamborghini is cooler than a pimped ride.

Having ape ancestors is way cooler than having been modelled out of a lump of dirt. And a clean and uninterrupted genetic lineage still beats some tinkering and tweaking along the way - it's just much more streamlined, just like a Lamborghini is cooler than a pimped ride.

Having ape ancestors is way cooler than having been modelled out of a lump of dirt. And a clean and uninterrupted genetic lineage still beats some tinkering and tweaking along the way - it's just much more streamlined, just like a Lamborghini is cooler than a pimped ride.

Tell me, from the bottom of your heart, this is what ID boils down to: "we are not apes," isn't it? You, guys, don't give a shit about the tree of life. At the end of the day, it's about the special creation of humans. Did I get it right?

I.D. boils down to, "we are not apes," to the same degree that Darwinism boils down to, "God does not exist."

Are there people who support I.D. because they believe it demonstrates that we're not apes, which they find comforting? Absolutely.

Are there people who support Darwinian evolution because they believe it explains life without need of a God, which they find comforting? Absolutely.

Tell me, from the bottom of your heart, this is what ID boils down to: "we are not apes," isn't it? You, guys, don't give a shit about the tree of life. At the end of the day, it's about the special creation of humans. Did I get it right?

I.D. boils down to, "we are not apes," to the same degree that Darwinism boils down to, "God does not exist."

Are there people who support I.D. because they believe it demonstrates that we're not apes, which they find comforting? Absolutely.

Are there people who support Darwinian evolution because they believe it explains life without need of a God, which they find comforting? Absolutely.

Again, motive mongering is a two-way street.

And again, we have no supporting evidence for anything you've said.

Do you really think that people believe in evolution because it makes it OK to not believe in God? I've got some bad news for you buddy... you are massively confused.

Evolution is not a belief. It is science. There is evidence. Whether you agree or disagree with the evidence is one thing, but there is evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Further, the theory of evolution can successfully predict future occurrences.

evolution is sciencescience is not a belieftherefore evolution is not a belief

I don't expect you to understand. After all, you think "because it looks complicated" is evidence that supports ID.

Of course, everywhere but in your head, people actually study a subject, then come to a decision about it. You guys decide how you want it to be, then try to find things that you think supports your opinion.

Again, I would like you to point out, in detail, where in the definition of evolution that it says "God does not exist".

If you want to discuss religion, I can do that too. But religion is not science. Science is not religion. Evolution is not religion, because it is science and ID is religion, even the inventors of ID say that ID is religion.

Remember this quote "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."? I wonder who said that?

Now, do you want to talk about religion or do you want to talk about science or (much more likely) neither?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.